# Thread: Distinguishing Pi from Pe

1. ## Distinguishing Pi from Pe

Count the number of dimension of an object of thought. The lower the number of dimensions the more strongly it relates to an introvert perceiving function. The higher the number, the more strongly it relates to an extrovert perceiving function.

The strict way of putting it is that all things that Pi deals with are 1-dimensional. 1-dimensional things are simply sequences.

A chair is a 3-dimensional object. Very Pe.
It can get worse though. A thought space of possible configurations of attributes of a chair (a color gradient, a height scale, etc) can be anything up to even 7-dimensional. Pe to the max.
A film is... a 1-dimensional sequence of 2-dimensional pictures. A mixture of Pi and Pe. Pretty close to Pi, but also processable as Pe when taken in as a whole.
A historical time-line is a 1-dimensional sequence of events. Fully Pi.
A verbal sentence is a sequence of words. 1 dimensional. Pi.

2. Concurrent 1-dimensions as 1D or multiple dimensions?

3. Any set of 2 concurrent sequences can be integrated into a single new sequence. I'd imagine that happens in the brain and the whole thing gets processed as 1-dimensional.

4. Ok, reinstating the post in condensed form.

Ne perceives things as progressions of concurrent possibilities: it's inherently 1-dimensional. Ni makes predictions, again: 1-d.

Se and Si make targeted judgements (potential territory for Se and emotional conductivity for Si) derived from analysis of multiple independant variables (the dimensions).

I believe you had jargon for that: Ns expand, Ss reduce.

5. for some reason I don't think this thread helps me confirm Yahtzee's type as ENTp rather than INTp.

6. Is this supersocion stuff?
No. Just part of the set of personal definitions that I work with. Call it "the laboatian interpretation" or some such thing. It's all work in progress, too, and may change shape through the course of my investigations.

Do you mean P to be irrational elements?
yes.

7. for some reason I don't think this thread helps me confirm Yahtzee's type as ENTp rather than INTp.
You're probably better of trying to udnerstand the difference using traditional methods. What's wrong with simply finding out wether the person is introvert or extrovert and Te or Ti?

8. Pi - Something you learn in math class.
Pe - The class after math class.

Hope this helps.

9. Originally Posted by diljs
Pi - Something you learn in math class.
Pe - The class after math class.

Hope this helps.
lmao

10. Originally Posted by labcoat
You're probably better of trying to udnerstand the difference using traditional methods. What's wrong with simply finding out wether the person is introvert or extrovert and Te or Ti?
It's (almost) never that simple. Both are muddied. It's the "Zero Punctuation" thread in what's my type. I was really hoping that Pi vs Pe in ego block would give another interpretation to typing data.

But really, this thread here has been made overly complicated and this way things become gibberish. The question is - how to distinguish Si and Ni from Se and Ne, right? Well, all these describe all the space and matter around us. Se and Ne describe everything that you could possibly pick up and toss around (assuming you're stong enough and it's not stuck on another object, like a mountain is stuck on the planet.)... Like labcoat said - all 3-dimensional stuff are essentially Pe.

And Pi... That means Ni and Si. Imagine you're a robot. A really stupid robot who has no access to wikipedia or google. Now if you look around and start describing the world around you, everything that doesn't describe the physics (size, shape, location, weight) of objects is Pi. You can describe their outer surface, their essence, their smell, taste, etc. But you can't describe emotions that you have about them because you're a robot and you can't list facts because you have no access to google.

That is basically the difference between Pi and Pe. In a non-logical and non-emotional world, any information that could be written in a physics textbook is probably Pe and any information that won't be written in a physics textbook is probably Pi.

PS! labcoat - height of objects is just one dimension, but it's Pe. Time is just the fourth dimension, but you can't define that it's Pi because it has one dimension. It's Pi because it doesn't have a form and weight. And anyway, a sentence is Pi because voice is something that doesn't have a physical form. If it's written down it becomes ink on paper which is either Pi (forms a texture that can be desribed) or it becomes a part of Pe because it adds to be weight of the paper. The real meaning behind sentences is either Thinking or Feeling and doesn't have a place in a Pi vs Pe discussion.

11. Originally Posted by Kristiina
(assuming you're stong enough and it's not stuck on another object, like a mountain is stuck on the planet.)
If you're strong enough, it not being stuck to something is redundant.

12. You can describe their outer surface, their essence, their smell, taste, etc.
An interesting thing you brought up... I could not describe a "surface", "essence", "smell" or "taste" if my life depended on it. If I tried I would probably end up describing them in terms of other essences/smells/tastes and end up with a circular definition*. My point is that the things you list here, in as far they are fundamental and not derived, are symbolically void. They represent something directly, simply by being "that which it is". The best you can do is denote them with a word. Can you understand how I arrive at the conclusion that this kind of information is not just flat like any 2-dimensional image, but flatter than flat: 1-dimensional?

That guy Slavoj Zizek said something clever that he imported from the works of Lacan: the real is that which resists symbolization. I say that Pi is that which resists symbolization. Likewise Pe would be what Lacan calls the symbolic reality: that which results from interposing non-symbolic contents in dimensional structures.

* in cases where this is possible, though, I would call the content being discussed instantiations of Pe rather than Pi.

Btw: try to find out whom the person gets along with. That's the most failsafe method. Find the person's dual, conflictor and supervisor and you'll know the type beyond a doubt. Also focus on making the person find his/her own type. Give him/her the information and let him/her think. The amount of understanding a person has about him/herself is impossible to match from an outside position.

13. Originally Posted by labcoat
An interesting thing you brought up... I could not describe a "surface", "essence", "smell" or "taste" if my life depended on it. If I tried I would probably end up describing them in terms of other essences/smells/tastes and end up with a circular definition*.
Don't simplify things again. Everyone can describe those things. Everyone makes a difference bettwen rock and silk.

People with stong Si tend to describe taste in comparison to other taste and using simplified terms - "sour, sweet, bitter". No one can DESCRIBE smell. But those who are good at Si are also good at distinguishing elements in odors - "a little minty, with a splash of watermelon...". I tend to describe smell through Ni - "reminds me of chinese food" or "smells like mint ice cream."

Originally Posted by labcoat
My point is that the things you list here, in as far they are fundamental and not derived, are symbolically void. They represent something directly, simply by being "that which it is". The best you can do is denote them with a word. Can you understand how I arrive at the conclusion that this kind of information is not just flat like any 2-dimensional image, but flatter than flat: 1-dimensional?

That guy Slavoj Zizek said something clever that he imported from the works of Lacan: the real is that which resists symbolization. I say that Pi is that which resists symbolization. Likewise Pe would be what Lacan calls the symbolic reality: that which results from interposing non-symbolic contents in dimensional structures.

* in cases where this is possible, though, I would call the content being discussed instantiations of Pe rather than Pi.

Btw: try to find out whom the person gets along with. That's the most failsafe method. Find the person's dual, conflictor and supervisor and you'll know the type beyond a doubt. Also focus on making the person find his/her own type. Give him/her the information and let him/her think. The amount of understanding a person has about him/herself is impossible to match from an outside position.
I don't think Pe and Pi distinction can be simplified into dimensions like that at all. The reason is that distance from one object to another - a very common 1-dimensional measurement - is Ne. It's basically the relation of one object to another. And the possibilities of an object and what you can do with an object in relation to other objects doesn't really have a dimension at all.

Mhh, voice actually has a couple of dimensions - height of the sound waves (pitch) and volume. And smell doesn't have a dimension at all. And time might be defined by being one dimension, but the essence of things - also Ni - doesn't have any dimension.

14. Originally Posted by Kristiina
People with stong Si tend to describe taste in comparison to other taste and using simplified terms - "sour, sweet, bitter". No one can DESCRIBE smell. But those who are good at Si are also good at distinguishing elements in odors - "a little minty, with a splash of watermelon...". I tend to describe smell through Ni - "reminds me of chinese food" or "smells like mint ice cream."
OK. That is your version, but I am offering an alternative in this thread. Does it make sense to you that when you are catagorizing and ordering your experiences in this way instead of processing them directly, you are in fact using an Extrovert P function? Perhaps I should put it another way: the MORE you catagorize and order things, the more strongly you draw on Pe.

IMO more clear instances of Si behavior would be to simply reproduce a sensation, for example by singing... No catagorization involved there.

Originally Posted by Kristiina
It's basically the relation of one object to another.
This is the primarly characteristic of a judging function (comparison of two objects, marking of a difference), so I can not agree that you're describing Ne.

Originally Posted by Kristiina
the essence of things - also Ni - doesn't have any dimension.
Then it can not be captured in information and doesn't have a place in a serious description of an information processing mechanism.

15. Originally Posted by labcoat
This is the primarly characteristic of a judging function (comparison of two objects, marking of a difference), so I can not agree that you're describing Ne.
Darn, you're right, I made a mistake, but you're wrong too. Viewing the difference between objects is the sign of an introverted function.

Ne - internal traits of an object (potential of an object)
Ni - internal traits in comparison to other objects.

Se - The power within an object
Si - the way the viewer percieves the object.

Fe - the underlying emotion OF an object (good object, bad object)
Fi - the relationship between the object and the viewer (Fi-dominants go around caregorizing things as "I like" or "I don't like". They rarely assume it says much about the object itself.)

Te - information of an object (it's usefulness among other things)
Ti - the link between objects or a system of information.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•